Disabled badges, courts, fraud & lying parking attendants!

NeverAgain_2

...I am amazed at the OP's vociferous approach to legit Council letters referring to his breaking the law...

I think this is a case of an OP who is only interested in receiving the advice he wants to hear.

The 'legal experts' in the other place have told him to ignore the council's letter about the blue badge.

He says he is relieved about that, and is going to follow that advice.

He's not been back here I think because he was not being told what he wanted to hear.

Ignoring the letter is an option, the council might give up.

But I suspect they won't, and he will be sent a summons to ignore next time.

taffy056

Before you criticise the advice given on pepipoo, try posting what it's in context too, they are saying he has no obligation to reply to their letter for more information, the links below will show how this has progressed fully, and not being very selected with the replies there!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60120
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60116

NeverAgain_2

...Before you criticise the advice given on pepipoo...

Taffy,

My comments from my last post on their advice:

"Ignoring the letter is an option, the council might give up.
"But I suspect they won't, and he will be sent a summons to ignore next time."

On the other site, they seem to think the council is in evidential difficulties.

The council has a statement from the warden, his photographs of the car, its dashboard and the surrounding area, and a statement from the OP conceding his nan was not present when he used the blue badge.

Looks like a strong case to me, and certainly not one where they will throw in the towel because the OP decides to not co-operate any further.

backfoot

NeverAgain wrote: »

On the other site, they seem to think the council is in evidential difficulties.

As I read it, the advice on Pepipoo is simply not to respond to the questionnaire which he has been sent. The feeling being that it may be used to incriminate him. All the advisers recommend the same.

There is a technical offence that has been committed, but there are also factors to show that OP is not a persistent fraudster and that he had legitimate purpose for his visit to the premises.

The advice seems sound to me at this stage and preferable to writing in giving admissions, before he knows whether they intend to prosecute.(which was your advice)

I don't think he deserves the sorts of penalties you have been very quick to show him that he might face.

p.s. you still didn't answer whose advice on pepippoo was guff or what skill set you hold for criticising them? Neither, have you taken on board the suggestion regarding the quote facility. It really is very easy and if you can't master it like everyone else does, I have to worry about your own competence.

NeverAgain_2

...I have to worry about your own competence...

There's no need, honestly, but thanks for the thought.


...The advice seems sound to me at this stage and preferable to writing in giving admissions...

The problem with that is he has already written in, giving admissions.

But as I said earlier, ignoring the letter is an option which might work, and which is unlikely to do much harm.

I think we could agree the offence is at the lower end of the scale.

We don't really know the circumstances of most of the offences I posted, but many are likely to be deliberate misuse and therefore more serious.

It looks like those attract a fine/costs in the region of £650 - £1,000.

The OP does have some mitigation, so could expect to do better than that.

taffy056

NeverAgain wrote: »

The problem with that is he has already written in, giving admissions.

And that could be classed as mitigating circumstances, we don't know how that will be interpreted by a magistrate should it go that far, it could be that the TRO for that area is not right, which means everything collapses in this case.

NeverAgain wrote: »

It looks like those attract a fine/costs in the region of £650 - £1,000.

The OP does have some mitigation, so could expect to do better than that.

And you are basing that on your experience I guess! Tell me what is that exactly ?

NeverAgain_2

Taffy,

I agree there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip in court cases, particularly motoring ones.

But I wouldn't advise the OP to plead not guilty in the hope of a procedural and/or technical foul-up.

Others, of course, might think differently.

I don't understand your question about my reading of possible penalties.

It's as set out, people who have committed the same offence have been fined £650 to £1,000.

It follows the OP, who almost certainly has better mitigation than most of those other cases, can reasonably expect a lower fine, or at least one at the lower end of the range.

I've looked for some sentencing guidelines on the net, but can't find any.

I can't see 'fraudulent use of a blue badge' in the usual guidelines - linked below in case I've missed it.

http://www.peterjepson.com/law/Magistrates%20Court%20Sentencing%20Guidelines.pdf

taffy056

NeverAgain,

Tickets are cancelled very often on technicalities , also criminal proceeding are often thrown out on such things, the reality is that the person involved should offer nothing further to help the council in this, if they proceed further the advice on pepipoo will change to reflect that, also as the pcn has problems so probably will be successfully appealed, it could have a bearing on the other matter.

halibut2209

The problem is that fraud has to involve an intentional deception. That's not the case here. In the examples you cited, there was an deliberate abuse of the system.

NeverAgain_2

...The problem is that fraud has to involve an intentional deception. That's not the case here. In the examples you cited, there was an deliberate abuse of the system...


This is not a Fraud Act offence, it is a Road Traffic Act offence.

As such, I think it may be an absolute offence - the prosecution only has to prove the defendant did the act complained of.

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200072/parking/324/blue_badge_enforcement/3

I'm not the biggest fan of Wiki, but there's a simple explanation of absolute offences here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_offences

We don't know the circumstances/charges in most of the cases I linked to because they are reported in a round-up fashion: "Eight drivers were fined a total of £xxx for illegal use of a blue badge."

But I think most of them are Road Traffic Act offences, not Fraud Act ones.

Fraud Act offences are fewer in number and tend to attract a higher penalty.